Neo-Nazi Rally Planned for Vancouver March 21

106 posts / 0 new
Last post
conrad yablonski

Quote:
I love how conrad equates white supremacists with anti-racists, and just lumps them all together as "the righteous", as if neither really has any claim to reality or reason.

You know, one side wishes Hitler and the Ku Klux Klan had succeeded in their ultimate goals, the other side wants to see an end to racism.

Well, heck, that's kind of the same, really, right conrad?  They're all equally extreme and anti-social, just different sides, is that it, conrad?

Slow night on the keyboard tonight?

 

No one else to deliberately misunderstand?

NorthReport

comrade, what's not to understand.

By-the-way, please speak for yourself here.

 

NorthReport

This seems like an effective way to counter-protest idiots.

 

Students protest religious extremists with silly signs

 

"This filth cannot go unchallenged by secularists and other moderate believers alike. The goal of our protest is to showcase the absurd nature of this church's claims through satire, while expressing tolerance for diversity."  

http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2010/03/27/13380791.html

Wolf Preserver

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

Neo Nazi Rally Planned for Vancouver March 21

http://mostlywater.org/neonazi_rally_planned_vancouver_area_two_articles

"The activist group No One is Illegal - Vancouver is preparing to confront what it says is a neo-Nazi rally being planned for March 21, the International Day for the Elimination of Racist Discrimination...The white-pride rally will start at 11:00 AM at the Braid Sky Train Station in New Westminster. Anti-racist protesters will gather at the same location..."

NorthReport wrote:

Why not just let the police handle it.

Counterdemonstrate and show what buffoons they are.

Viking77

It took some link-hopping to discover what the rallyers themselves considered the rally to be about. Turns out they consider themselves not to be neo-Nazis but “Advocates for White Civil Rights”. By no stretch of the imagination is that the same thing.

It sounds silly, of course, but consider this. If you play at identity politics and try to unite all "non-white" groups against the majority, then don't be surprised if some white people want to play too. See the British National Party for example - identity politics for 'white' Britons.

Now, the Left created identity politics, and the Left created groups like these. They are your product, you have to live with them.

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

 

 No it just doesn't sound silly. It is silly.   

 Twisted and bizzare apologetics is what it is.

 

Unionist

Viking77 wrote:

Now, the Left created identity politics, and the Left created groups like these. They are your product, you have to live with them.

No, we don't have to "live with" Nazis, we have to crush them. We've done it before and we'll do it again.

As for "identity politics", it was racists and fascists and colonialists that created those, by oppressing people because of race and sex and nationality etc.

And if you think that way about the Left, what are you doing on this discussion board? Especially when your arguments are so unintelligent? We only tolerate right-wingers here who (a) have a conscience, and (b) are smart.

Viking77

My argument was so "unintelligent" you missed it completely, Unionist. Someone isn't a Nazi just because some clown says he is. Look at your language! Whom you will "tolerate" and whom you will "crush". Of course we shouldn't tolerate Nazis - you can protest them, shun them, marginalise them. Although the last crushing of Nazis, I'm proud to say, took place in 1945, such 'crushing' and 'smashing' language seems misplaced in this context. what exactly does that involve? Or is the martial language metaphorical?

Unionist

I meant "crush" in the [url=http://startcooking.com/blog/51/How-to-Slice--Mince-and-Crush-Garlic]purely culinary sense[/url], and likewise with [url=http://www.canadianliving.com/food/smashed_potatoes_with_garlic_and_butt..."smash"[/url]. I'm so disappointed that you see military metaphors where others detect only fine cuisine.

Viking77

 

And if you think that way about the Left, what are you doing on this discussion board? Especially when your arguments are so unintelligent? We only tolerate right-wingers here who (a) have a conscience, and (b) are smart.

 

Whatever I may think about the Left, or any form of oppression - revulsion, mostly - it does not preclude my being interested in what the Left has to say, or prevent me from asking those who say it clarify what they mean. Do you not keep a close watch on what 'the other side' is doing?

Viking77

Unionist wrote:

I meant "crush" in the [url=http://startcooking.com/blog/51/How-to-Slice--Mince-and-Crush-Garlic]purely culinary sense[/url], and likewise with [url=http://www.canadianliving.com/food/smashed_potatoes_with_garlic_and_butt..."smash"[/url]. I'm so disappointed that you see military metaphors where others detect only fine cuisine.

 

nice retort :)

Unionist

Viking77 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I meant "crush" in the [url=http://startcooking.com/blog/51/How-to-Slice--Mince-and-Crush-Garlic]purely culinary sense[/url], and likewise with [url=http://www.canadianliving.com/food/smashed_potatoes_with_garlic_and_butt..."smash"[/url]. I'm so disappointed that you see military metaphors where others detect only fine cuisine.

 

nice retort :)

Re torte, you can't do better than a good Canadian [url=http://www.canadianliving.com/food/chocolate_espresso_torte.php]Chocolate espresso[/url].

Viking77

Well, now I think we ought to dispense with the word "Canadian" don't you? It's woefully ethnocentric and unashamedly uninclusive.

While it is referred to as a chocolate (English) espresso (Italian) torte (French?) it may appear Canadian on the surface but does it really represent all Canadians?

a look at the ingrediants reveals the following:

cocoa (native Americans), potato starch (that's the Irish covered), coffee (Latin Americans), cinnamon (native to the Indian subcontinent), salt (possibly first used by the Chinese), margarine (French again).

But, the apparent inclusiveness of c.e.t. is negated by it's lack of any African or Middle Eastern ingrediants, and as there are Canadians from those regions, I put it to you that "Canadian" in this context is EuroAmericoSinoNativeCentric and should be abandoned.

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

 You're wrong about potatoes.  They aren't irish.

Viking77

"You're wrong about potatoes.  They aren't irish."

 

I know that. Thanks, though.

remind remind's picture

Viking77 wrote:
..what the rallyers themselves considered the rally to be about. Turns out they consider themselves not to be neo-Nazis but “Advocates for White Civil Rights”. By no stretch of the imagination is that the same thing.

Now isn't that fabrication cute. Apparently you decided to overlook the link detailing what white supremists affliations the organizer had.

Quote:
It sounds silly, of course, but consider this. If you play at identity politics and try to unite all "non-white" groups against the majority, then don't be surprised if some white people want to play too. See the British National Party for example - identity politics for 'white' Britons.

Now..here you see is where you first went wrong in your thought processes. A diversion that took you into sllyland and beyond....which interestingly you do recognize yourself, or you would not have mentioned that it sounds silly. Apparently only liking to hear the sound of your own voice, or if not that, you are failing to move beyond thought terminating indoctrination that has no resemblance to truth.

White people, mainly men, have been playing identity politics, expertly well, for long enough. Even to the point where some like yourself apparently believe whites are the "majority" population of the world. Here is your first clue to grabbing a brain, white people are not the majority, not even close. However, white men have been  the winners of the identity politics game, by keeping the playing field unlevel. Or you could say cheating by mass murder and design. So, you could say white men set the rules, and now wieners, such as yourself, are whinning that everyone else has decided to play to win too.

Now because of the facts above, as opposed to your internalized distortion of truth, the following sentence of yours indicates what a real lack wit you are:

Quote:
"created identity politics, and the Left created groups like these. They are your product, you have to live with them.

No, white men in their colonialist endeavors created the most recent differences betweens humans, in order to exploit both the peoples and their lands. Apparently, in their stupidity, they did not realize that by creating groups based upon an imposed identity, they would more firmly entrench a differing identity than that of the "white male". So in actual fact, they/we are your product and you have to live with us.

This has got not a thing to do with "the Left" other than your, and others, wanting to incorrectly shift the blame off of white men's historical actions.

 

Also, given your wife is a pyschiatrist, down on the lower mainland of BC, and you are immigrants to Canada, I would suggest that your American education has a few significant shortfallings and you would do well to fill in the gap. And one hopes your wife does not share your ill-informed perspectives.

 

Viking77

Wow, heavy stuff for a Sunday, Remind.

First off, Identity politics is a Western thing, and yes, in the "Western world", white people are a majority. If you identify them as "white", that is - I've only ever been called 'white' by other people, never myself, so I consider it an imposed label. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to accept that nobody thinks white people are the world-wide majority!

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about - 'white men' may have made the rules (of Western liberal democracy at least), but they are not 'white' rules, they are for everyone, and everybody plays them with a huge amount of success - but 'whites-only' ideology is very small and insignificant and is hardly a political force. Marches like these are best ignored, they are not the viewpoint of the majority and if they speak SOME truth to Some people, it's only because of the loony policies of leftists.

Your North-American centric worldview is working against you here. In Europe, where most "white people" live, they think of themselves as Irish, Welsh, whatever - not "white", that's a New World thing - and white males are highly competitive with one another and do not think of themselves/ourselves as an identity group.

Once you think in terms of interest-groups, don't be surprised if a minority of those you vilify so much start to think in those terms too (what you think of as White Supremacists).

"We" don't think of ourselves as a group.

Your comment reveal that you have no understand of history or culture - "white men" created the differences between humans??? Who is the White Supremacist now? What you are saying is that only white people are historical actors - the rest are just window dressing, incapable of thinking for themselves and developing their own prejudices. While we 'whiteys' were busy living in caves, colonialism, slavery and oppression already existed in the world!

And, incidentally, nobody wants to shift the blame from the wrongs of the past, we are more interested in righting them. and creating group-blame and re-writing history, and allowing our own personal hatreds and neuroses to dictate our interpretation of history will not have the desired effect.

Viking77

.... and I meant it was the march that sounded silly...

remind remind's picture

Good grief, I cannot imagine the harm your wife is doing......

...and I am not going to respond further to your white supremists superiority  blatherings, there is absolutely no point.

 

In fact, will ask the mods if they think someone taking the white supremist anti-progressive position you are taking, belongs at rabble....given the rules you were supposed to ascribe to when you signed up.

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

 

 Holy crap.  More apologetics.  

 I'me really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt dude and read this in a way that is not suggesting that people go supremy through no fault of their own (ie the 'lefts fault) but yeah it's sure coming off that way.

 I never realized 'the left' holds that much power and mind control over people.  Whaza!  Boom we got yah.

I wonder if " 'the left' made me hate this way' would hold up in a court of law as a defense.

Unionist

Can we get back to smashing fascism potatoes?

 

Viking77

Will you NOT bring my family into it?

If the only way you can discuss something is with cheap tricks, insults, and ignoring what another person actually says, then what are YOU even doing on this forum? or any forum? you are clearly not qualified to even use a computer, Remind.

Do you even bother reading comments, or just type the same responses out with the same, tired old catchphrases?

You'll not be happy to just go and protest this march, you'll go and bleat about fascists and try to 'ban' it, even though they're a bunch of idiots whom everyone will ignore until you start making a fuss over them, and yet you'll ignore the REAL fascists, like the pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel demonstrators and the anti-free speechers. Fascism wears many cloaks, Remind. Don't get caught on the wrong side.

Unionist

Oh great, now there's a bad smell coming from the kitchen. Really bad.

Does anyone recall which days they collect the non-recyclable garbage around here?

 

Viking77

Unionist wrote:

Can we get back to smashing fascism potatoes?

 

 

with pleasure...

 

Well, ElizaQ, I sincerely hope no-one will ever be brought to court for "hating"! If they - or anyone else- do something violent, or threaten violence, arrest them. Otherwise, thought (however bad) is not a crime - yet.

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

  Thanks Viking. 

 

   I know that.  It was a metaphorical point.

 

 Anyways I want to apologize for my comments.  Can't help it.  "Rightest" policies made me do it.

Unionist

ElizaQ, you're free to apologize (though I don't know why), but I would have a hard time apologizing to anyone who just said this:

Viking77 wrote:
... you'll ignore the REAL fascists, like the pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel demonstrators and the anti-free speechers.

 

remind remind's picture

viking77 wrote:
Don't get caught on the wrong side.

 

Now, this comment as well as others, are threats and warnings, all at the same time. Moreover, it is quite apparent you are inciting "race wars"

And I will bring your wife into it each and every time you state something like this, as you stated you control her practise and her. Thus you, a person who holds racist ideologies are practising psychiatry in my province, as you even took ownership of her educational attainment.

ETA: Did you really think  if you did not post here for a while that people would forget these formerly challenged comments and actions of yours?

 

 

 

 

Viking77

remind wrote:

viking77 wrote:
Don't get caught on the wrong side.

 

Now, this comment as well as others, are threats and warnings, all at the same time. Moreover, it is quite apparent you are inciting "race wars"

 

And I will bring your wife into it each and every time you state something like this, as you stated you control her practise and her. And even took ownership of her educational attainment.

 

"race wars"???? Jesus. I can't even respond to that.

You accuse me of threatening you now, after you subtly mention my location and wife's occupation in - what? - some attempt to "out" me?

and the last comment is not even worth a response.

Unionist

[url=http://www.idrink.com/v.html?id=5074]Screaming Viking drink recipe[/url]

Mmm-mmm-good!

Quote:

Ingredients to use:
1.0 oz Lime juice
1.0 oz dry Vermouth
2.0 oz OVAL Vodka

Directions:
Stir liquids with ice then strain into a cocktail glass. Garnish with a celery stalk and a cucumber spear. Serve immediately.

j.m.

Viking77 wrote:

remind wrote:

viking77 wrote:
Don't get caught on the wrong side.

Now, this comment as well as others, are threats and warnings, all at the same time. Moreover, it is quite apparent you are inciting "race wars"

"race wars"???? Jesus. I can't even respond to that.

Good, don't waste your breath. Your illustrious history on babble for discussing race speaks for itself.

remind remind's picture

Unionist wrote:
.... would have a hard time apologizing to anyone who just said this:

Viking77 wrote:
... you'll ignore the REAL fascists, like the pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel demonstrators and the anti-free speechers.

me too, and where are the mods?

 

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

 This one is pretty simple Viking.  It has nothing to do with some sort of different leftie speak.

 It's just a play on the arguement you've made at least twice now that has justified white supremists existing as a result of the left. You even said basically their existence is because of as I quote' loonie leftist policies'.  They are the lefts 'products'

So yeah to be clear I am mocking that argument which basically read in a nutshell, 'lefts fault, if the left wasn't loony they wouldn't exists, it's not really there fault."    eg  The left made me do it. 

Now benefit of the doubt time here, if this isn't what your intending to say here then I suggest that you go back and really think about it because this is the way it's coming across.  I will also point out as someone who actually has had dealings with white supremist and white pride people that this sort of reasoning is EXACTLY the sort of reasoning that comes out of their mouths.  If only those 'bleeding heart libs (or versions of that) didn't do this I would HAVE to be these way.   Unlike some here I have not come straight out and suggested that you by any means subscribe to this POV.   Do yourself a favour if you don't because as unintentional as  might be your sounding a hella of lot like them when you make arguements like this.

 

Viking77

so what - 'fascists' is your word and you don't like it when other people use it?

anyway, as j.m. says I've been railroaded on the subject of race before, so I'm staying off of that one. For good.

I can't debate anyone who a) can only see the world in two dimensions, like Flatland, and b) cannot understand an opposing view because words from anyone who differs in opinion just come across as "rightwingrightwingrightwingrightwing", the blinkers come on and the standard learnt-by-heart responses pop out.

 

remind remind's picture

yesterday while watching Canadian women lose at curling, I made, what I think is a beautiful, hair ornament for holding long hair up in a contained unit. It is made from pale pink and mauve quartz, brass, and mother of pearl, beads. Going to make another one out of wood beads today.

what prompted this activity, was that I cleaned out my kitchen drawers and found a bunch of lacquered chop sticks, that had some chips in the lacquere.

 

Viking77

ElizaQ, that's a shame, but I see exactly what you're saying.

True, defending freedom of expression can make people think you're on the side of those you are defending, even when you don't agree with them. I've repeatedly given my opinion on those (non-) marchers and I too have had some experience with that sort. I approve of protest, but when protest is about banning something, its not protest, it's a campaign.

You can mock all you like, why else do these groups exist? They just hate for hate's sake is not a satisfactory answer. And whether or not they are a reaction to leftist policies object to, does not preclude those policies from having been reactions to other policies! People are not robots, and to take your example, they can't blame their violence on others 'making' them that way. Aren't there any policies around that YOU don't like? If so, do those policies MAKE you hate them? Or are you just reacting to them and trying to change them?

j.m.

Viking77 wrote:

anyway, as j.m. says I've been railroaded on the subject of race before, so I'm staying off of that one. For good.

seems to me you are more than happy to railroad yourself into race issues.

and didn't you just take a shot at race issues yesterday by questioning how racism exists against muslims in canada?

BTW if you are in Toronto next weekend I cordially invite you to the following:

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

 

edited

Viking77

No, j.m. it's a subject that holds little interest as I don't really think in those terms - and I don't think anyone responded to that question about muslims being a race!

But what's with all the potato cracks? is it really an attempt to poke fun at the Irish? or just a coincidence?

Viking77

nev.mind...

j.m.

Viking77 wrote:

No, j.m. it's a subject that holds little interest as I don't really think in those terms - and I don't think anyone responded to that question about muslims being a race!

But what's with all the potato cracks? is it really an attempt to poke fun at the Irish? or just a coincidence?

I know you don't think race applies. This is why the Anti-Racism 101 2.0 thread failed.

Remember this little gem?

http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1104416/So-best-best

And yes, people did respond to you.

 

As for the potato cracks, you still don't get it. That's because being euro-centric causes myopia or blindness. At least potatoes can grow eyes.

Unionist

j.m. wrote:
At least potatoes can grow eyes.

And despite their thin skins, they're still somewhat appeeling.

 

j.m.

Unionist wrote:

[url=http://www.idrink.com/v.html?id=5074]Screaming Viking drink recipe[/url]

Mmm-mmm-good!

Quote:

Ingredients to use:
1.0 oz Lime juice
1.0 oz dry Vermouth
2.0 oz OVAL Vodka

Directions:
Stir liquids with ice then strain into a cocktail glass. Garnish with a celery stalk and a cucumber spear. Serve immediately.

And they are a necessary ingredient in the making of a Screaming Viking.

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

Viking77 wrote:

ElizaQ, that's a shame, but I see exactly what you're saying.

True, defending freedom of expression can make people think you're on the side of those you are defending, even when you don't agree with them. I've repeatedly given my opinion on those (non-) marchers and I too have had some experience with that sort. I approve of protest, but when protest is about banning something, its not protest, it's a campaign.

You can mock all you like, why else do these groups exist? They just hate for hate's sake is not a satisfactory answer. And whether or not they are a reaction to leftist policies object to, does not preclude those policies from having been reactions to other policies! People are not robots, and to take your example, they can't blame their violence on others 'making' them that way. Aren't there any policies around that YOU don't like? If so, do those policies MAKE you hate them? Or are you just reacting to them and trying to change them?

 

 I said absolutely nothing about defending freedom or expression or that your defence of their freedom of expression makes one seem like they're supporting them.  I'm also not sure where people were suggesting a ban on them rallying. If so I missed it.  Regardless this has nothing to do with any of my comments.   As far as I am concerned they have a right to march and a right to rally but what they don't have is a right to do that in an arena without any pushback.   Freedom of speech does not imply to speak and have other people shut up about it.

Well for one your making a huge assumption that it's only 'leftist policies' they are reacting too.  Last I checked in both the US and Canada there is no carte blanche left right divide in policies that effect minorities meaning both right and left policies affect minorities.   Now were could get into and debate about with side is better for minorities, that could go on all day.  It's beside the point to it's the lefts fault argument you've made here.

  Do you not realize that in order for your 'carte blache' arguement to follow through logically, that you are saying or implying that right wing policies are okay for racists and supremists?  Do you understand what that suggests here?  Do you understand that by attacking leftie positions as THE REASON (carte blanche)   that you're actually condeming all rightie policies?   I personally don't think your intending to do that but regardless you are even if it's accidental on your part.     That's actually the supreme irony (pun intended) here since you self identify as a rightie.     So yeah, sorry,  I do find that kind of funny ironic.

Try looking at the creation of the supremist phenomenon without your partisan right/ left blinkers on.   Then maybe you'll get to understand what drives people like that.  Not everything in this world fits into some sort of right, left position at it's starting point.   Racism  and white supremicy does not just stop at some sort right left divide.   Though rarer it seems,  left leaning supremists do exist.

Viking77

ElizaQ wrote:

Viking77 wrote:

ElizaQ, that's a shame, but I see exactly what you're saying.

True, defending freedom of expression can make people think you're on the side of those you are defending, even when you don't agree with them. I've repeatedly given my opinion on those (non-) marchers and I too have had some experience with that sort. I approve of protest, but when protest is about banning something, its not protest, it's a campaign.

You can mock all you like, why else do these groups exist? They just hate for hate's sake is not a satisfactory answer. And whether or not they are a reaction to leftist policies object to, does not preclude those policies from having been reactions to other policies! People are not robots, and to take your example, they can't blame their violence on others 'making' them that way. Aren't there any policies around that YOU don't like? If so, do those policies MAKE you hate them? Or are you just reacting to them and trying to change them?

 

 I said absolutely nothing about defending freedom or expression or that your defence of their freedom of expression makes one seem like they're supporting them.  I'm also not sure where people were suggesting a ban on them rallying. If so I missed it.  Regardless this has nothing to do with any of my comments.   As far as I am concerned they have a right to march and a right to rally but what they don't have is a right to do that in an arena without any pushback.   Freedom of speech does not imply to speak and have other people shut up about it.

Well for one your making a huge assumption that it's only 'leftist policies' they are reacting too.  Last I checked in both the US and Canada there is no carte blanche left right divide in policies that effect minorities meaning both right and left policies affect minorities.   Now were could get into and debate about with side is better for minorities, that could go on all day.  It's beside the point to it's the lefts fault argument you've made here.

  Do you not realize that in order for your 'carte blache' arguement to follow through logically, that you are saying or implying that right wing policies are okay for racists and supremists?  Do you understand what that suggests here?  Do you understand that by attacking leftie positions as THE REASON (carte blanche)   that you're actually condeming all rightie policies?   I personally don't think your intending to do that but regardless you are even if it's accidental on your part.     That's actually the supreme irony (pun intended) here since you self identify as a rightie.     So yeah, sorry,  I do find that kind of funny ironic.

Try looking at the creation of the supremist phenomenon without your partisan right/ left blinkers on.   Then maybe you'll get to understand what drives people like that.  Not everything in this world fits into some sort of right, left position at it's starting point.   Racism  and white supremicy does not just stop at some sort right left divide.   Though rarer it seems,  left leaning supremists do exist.

 

I would say that they hate Capitalism as much as they hate Socialism. Nazis always did. I still think the title of their march indicates that it's liberal policies they find objectionable. Other than that, I don't disagree with anything you've said. Freedom of speech means other have to the right to object, absolutely. That's how the balance works - bad behaviour is self-regulating that way.

Viking77

"Do you not realize that in order for your 'carte blache' arguement to follow through logically, that you are saying or implying that right wing policies are okay for racists and supremists?  Do you understand what that suggests here?  Do you understand that by attacking leftie positions as THE REASON (carte blanche)   that you're actually condeming all rightie policies?"

 

Yes, you are right. But depends what you think of as left and Right policies. For example, in my experience extremists don't have much of a grasp of economics in any case but are rabidly anti-Capitalist. The free market abhors them, and that's what I think of as a 'ring-wing' policy. They would think welfare is good - but only for them - and they would be against immigration, which many capitalists are in favour of. So you are correct - there are some right-wing policies they would object to (again, probably) but I don't think of extremists as being "far-right" as I think that term is meaningless. they are just extremists. it's hard to know what they think beyond their immediate knee-jerk reactions.

j.m.

Viking77 wrote:

For example, in my experience extremists don't have much of a grasp of economics in any case but are rabidly anti-Capitalist.

Funny. Those non-extremist capitalists had to put bullets - or at least try to - in the heads of democratically-elected people who you would label extremist.

 

Viking77

j.m. wrote:

Viking77 wrote:

For example, in my experience extremists don't have much of a grasp of economics in any case but are rabidly anti-Capitalist.

Funny. Those non-extremist capitalists had to put bullets - or at least try to - in the heads of democratically-elected people who you would label extremist.

 

 

you mean like Hitler?

j.m.

Yes, like Hitler, except it's quite obvious that his policy of killing millions of people made him an extremist.

I was referring to someone like Salvador Allende. (I'll give you a hint: he was elected president in the territory just south of the birthplace of potatoes).

Viking77

j.m. wrote:

 

I was referring to someone like Salvador Allende.

Of course you were!

But you are crawling too far off-topic, so - sorry, not biting :)

j.m.

Viking77 wrote:

j.m. wrote:

 

I was referring to someone like Salvador Allende.

Of course you were!

But you are crawling too far off-topic, so - sorry, not biting :)

Let me "distill" my point even further so that you can "drink it up" (think of it as turning potatoes into vodka if you need a visual). I think making the claim that all extremists in your experience are anti-capitalist is quite on-topic. This is a rather crtical forum with quite a few leftists who do challenge capitalism, and yet again you have made comments that are designed to enrage the babble community with sweeping statements.

 

Pages

Topic locked